The Word of YHWH to Amos

The following is a record of what Amos prophesied. He was one of the herdsmen from Tekoa. These prophecies about Israel were revealed to him during the time of King Uzziah of Judah and King Jeroboam son of Joash of Israel, two years before the earthquake.
Amos said: “YHWH comes roaring out of Zion; from Jerusalem he comes bellowing! The shepherds’ pastures wilt; the summit of Carmel withers” (Amos 1:1-2).

In the eyes of many Israelites, in the days of Jeroboam ben Joash some “southern hick” came up to Bethel and preached a lot of “madness.” Very little of what he said made sense in terms of the world in which they lived. Nothing they had experienced gave them any indication his warnings should be taken seriously. Everything was normal; one could even say Israel had been made great again. So what was wrong with this guy?

We deem the Book of Amos as the third of the twelve books of the “minor prophets,” deemed “minor” because their recorded messages were shorter than those of the “major prophets” Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. But these prophets were not “minor” in terms of the power or importance of their messages; and Amos prepared the way.

Amos was identified as “one of the herdsmen from Tekoa” in Amos 1:1; he would also identify himself as a dresser of sycamore (fig) trees in Amos 7:14. Amos was therefore not among the “sons of the prophets,” which seemed to have been kind of like a guild of prophets in Israel during the days of the kings (e.g. 2 Kings 2:3). Instead, he was a keeper of sheep and sycamore fig trees, probably of some means. He lived in Tekoa in Judah, a village about fifteen kilometers south of Jerusalem, right on the southern edge of the Judean hill country, between a fertile plain to the west and the Judean desert to the east.

Uzziah (or Azariah) ben Amaziah reigned as king of Judah for fifty-two years, somewhere around 800-750 BCE (2 Kings 15:1-7, 2 Chronicles 26:1-23). Likewise, Jeroboam ben Joash reigned as king of Israel for forty-one years, perhaps something like 793-753 BCE (2 Kings 14:23-29). The unknown inspired prophetic editor specifically dated Amos’ prophetic message to “two years before the earthquake” (Amos 1:1). This earthquake was sufficiently memorable enough to be used as a reference in Zechariah’s prophecy in Zechariah 14:5 around two hundred and thirty years later. Earthquakes are prevalent in the Levant; nevertheless, archaeologists have discovered significant evidence of damaged buildings consistent with an earthquake from around this time at many sites in Israel, and have dated the earthquake to within 30 years before or after 750 BCE. Many generally speak of the earthquake as taking place around 760 BCE, and therefore Amos’ prophecies would have been given in 762 BCE. For convenience’s sake, we will speak of the time of Amos and his prophecy as 760 BCE.

While Jonah ben Amittai was most likely an early contemporary of Amos, living and prophesying to Israel around 775 BCE, the Book of Jonah told a story about Jonah, and not the word of YHWH to Israel through him (cf. 2 Kings 14:25, Jonah 1:1-4:11). Amos, therefore, represents for us the oldest among the “major” and “minor” prophets; the messages of all those prophets would follow his both temporally and thematically. Before we delve into the word of YHWH to Amos, we do well to consider the situation of Israel and its people in 760 BCE so we might better understand how and why YHWH spoke through Amos as He did, and why Amos suffered the kind of responses he received.

It can be very challenging for us to understand the world of 760 BCE because it remains very foreign to us on multiple levels. In Greece, the fifth Olympiad took place in 760 BCE, with the Olympic Games having only been founded sixteen years beforehand. If we are to take the legends and myths with any level of seriousness, Romulus and Remus were young men in central Italy who would only work to found the city of Rome seven years later. While Europe was in the Iron Age, and the Phoenicians would have maintained many ports and trade contacts throughout Mediterranean Europe, the Israelites of Amos’ day would have almost no reason to think about them or give them any regard. They were instead in the middle of their world, the world of the ancient Near East, featuring Egypt to the southwest, a series of small kingdoms in the Levant, Luwian-Aramean states in the northern Levant and eastern Anatolia, Assyria in northern Mesopotamia, and Babylon and Elam in southern Mesopotamia.

We can understand why the Israelites of Amos’ day in 760 BCE would have considered the state of affairs of the ancient Near East at the time as their “normal.” It had been no less than four hundred years since the major empires of what we call the Bronze Age experienced systems collapse and were destroyed or faded significantly. Whereas the Mycenaean palatial civilization and Hittite Empire were destroyed, never to return, and Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt were significantly weakened, conditions in the area of the Levant actually improved. Those who accept a later date for the Exodus would suggest the Israelites themselves had conquered Canaan not much earlier than this period; the Philistines and the Arameans would move in to the Levant at this time as well. Many of the nations and peoples in the city-states which had endured for thousands of years in the Levant went through something like what the Israelites went through, and eventually consolidated into various kingdoms.

By 760 BCE, Israel had existed as a kingdom for two hundred and forty years, having been divided into Israel and Judah for around one hundred and seventy of them. Amos would well capture Israel’s “nearby” world in Amos 1:3-2:16: the Aramean kingdom based in Damascus; four Philistine cities; Tyre, a Phoenician city-state; the kingdoms of Edom, Ammon, and Moab; and finally Judah and Israel themselves. By 760 BCE, all of these kingdoms and powers had existed for as long, if not longer, than Israel and Judah themselves.

In 760 BCE, these nations had little to fear from historically larger and more threatening neighbors to their south and north. Egypt was ruled by at least two pharaohs in 760 BCE, Shoshenq V of the 22nd dynasty, and Takelot III of the 23rd dynasty. Shoshenq’s namesake ancestor Shoshenq I had invaded Judah and the Levant around 925 BCE (cf. 1 Kings 14:25-26, 2 Chronicles 12:1-9): it had been the first incursion into the Levant by Egyptian forces in over two hundred years, and it would be the last until well after the days of Amos. Shalmaneser III of Assyria had faced Hadadezer of Aram, Ahab of Israel, and many other kings at the Battle of Qarqar in 853 BCE and imposed a lot of tribute upon the Arameans and Jehu king of Israel; in 760 BCE Shalmaneser’s great-grandson, Ashur-dan III ruled on the throne, but was so limited by challenges in his court and the power of his nobles that we know very little about him. In Babylon, Nabû-šuma-iškun reigned; the city was embroiled in civil war and he would be later known best for the crimes and sacrileges he supposedly committed.

Therefore, in 760 BCE, things seemed to be going on in Israel just as they had for hundreds of years. Egyptian domination of the Levant was a thing of the distant past; Assyrian incursions perhaps had taken place more recently, but were still infrequent and not a significant concern at this particular moment. All the kingdoms of the Levant would either be allying with or fighting against one another as is manifest throughout the books of the Kings and Chronicles.

760 BCE in particular was a fantastic time for both Israel and Judah. Uzziah and Jeroboam both lived for a long time and oversaw stability and prosperity. Whereas Hazael of Aram had ravaged Israel in a previous generation, Jeroboam had been able to re-conquer all the lost land and to restore Israel to its historic boundaries and beyond, asserting military dominance over Damascus and Hamath (cf. 2 Kings 14:25-28). In 760 BCE, things seemed to be looking up for the Kingdom of Israel. They had come out of a period of weakness and domination at the hands of the Arameans and were now ascendant, perhaps even the most dominant power in the southern Levant.

This is the Israel to which Amos would go and speak the word of YHWH: a people in relative ease and prosperity, not terribly bothered by the oppression and exploitation of the poor and marginalized among them, certainly confessing YHWH as the God of Israel, but not fully dedicated to Him or to His purposes. Everything was continuing as it had been for hundreds of years. Sometimes YHWH had compassion on His people or favored them and gave them victory over their enemies. Sometimes YHWH would be angry with His people and give victory to their enemies instead. And so it went for all of the other local nations and their gods. And we can assume most Israelites expected such things to continue well into the future.

What the Israelites of 760 BCE did not know, but what Amos warned about and what we can understand through historical investigation, was how they were living at the end of the “good old days.” No doubt the earthquake which would take place two years later caused great devastation and destruction. Jeroboam ben Joash would die somewhere around 750 BCE; his son Zechariah would reign only six months before being deposed, and over the next thirty years, Israel would have five kings from four dynasties (2 Kings 14:29-17:6). In 744 BCE, Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria would take over the throne, and he would eliminate Aram as a going concern and reduce Israel to a rump state in 732 BCE (2 Kings 15:29). Ten years later, his sons Shalmaneser V and Sargon II would finish off the Kingdom of Israel, whose inhabitants would be exiled to Assyria, and all according to the word of YHWH delivered by Amos forty years earlier (2 Kings 17:1-6). This means there would have been at least some people who experienced Assyrian domination who had heard Amos warn them about such things in Bethel thirty or forty years earlier. Everything had gone on as usual until it did so no longer. And it all changed within a human generation.

Such was only the beginning. The Assyrians would go on to establish the first great empire worthy of the name, but would be thoroughly destroyed and eliminated as a going concern by the Chaldean Babylonians and Medes by 609 BCE (cf. Nahum 1:1-3:19). Those same Babylonians would exile almost all the inhabitants of Judah and destroy Jerusalem and its Temple by 586 BCE (cf. 2 Kings 25:1-21). The world Israel enjoyed in 760 BCE had existed for approximately two hundred and fifty years; by 510 BCE, two hundred and fifty years after the days of Amos, both Babylon and Egypt had themselves been eliminated as going concerns, with the whole of the ancient Near East subsumed under the Persian Empire. Nations which had existed as independent kingdoms for two thousand years or more, sometimes enjoying great power and prestige as empires, were gone. Empires would dominate the land until within living memory.

Thus Israel in 760 BCE was enjoying the “good old days.” They naively assumed everything would continue the way it had. In human and earthly terms, they would have no basis upon which to expect otherwise or to be prepared for what was about to happen to them. But YHWH was about to roar from Zion, and it would cause great environmental devastation (Amos 1:2). If Israel heeded the word of YHWH, they may have been able to persevere and endure. But they would not, and they would suffer the consequences.

To this end, we can greatly appreciate and prize the word of YHWH to Amos: the Israelites might have held such a “southern hick” in contempt, but every word which he spoke would find its fulfillment, mostly within a generation of its delivery. There was nothing about Assyria or Egypt or anything else in 760 BCE which Amos could have seen in order to declare such things. YHWH’s message through Amos heralded a drastically new and different world for which Israel and Judah had no past experience on which to draw. The prophetic word was confirmed, and we do well to give heed to the voice of God in Christ through the Spirit, and serve Him well so we might obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Value of Knowing Christ

Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! To write this again is no trouble to me, and it is a safeguard for you.
Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For we are the circumcision, the ones who worship by the Spirit of God, exult in Christ Jesus, and do not rely on human credentials – though mine too are significant. If someone thinks he has good reasons to put confidence in human credentials, I have more: I was circumcised on the eighth day, from the people of Israel and the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews. I lived according to the law as a Pharisee. In my zeal for God I persecuted the church. According to the righteousness stipulated in the law I was blameless.
But these assets I have come to regard as liabilities because of Christ. More than that, I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things– indeed, I regard them as dung! – that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness – a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness (Philippians 3:1-9).

“Judaizing” teachers were traveling about, and Paul already had to deal with their fallout in other congregations. He wanted to prepare the Philippian Christians accordingly and provided valuable exhortation in the process.

Philippi was a Roman colony in Macedonia (part of modern Greece); Paul first visited the area and preached Jesus around 51 (cf. Acts 16:11-40). Paul wrote to the Christians in Philippi most likely around 60-61 from Rome while living under house arrest there (cf. Philippians 1:1). In Philippians 1:1-26, Paul thanked the Philippian Christians for their joint participation in his work, prayed for them to abound in love and act wisely, and reported as favorably as possible regarding his circumstances. Paul then established his primary exhortation: they should live as faithful citizens of the Gospel together and suffer for Him well (Philippians 1:27-30). Paul then argued and reasoned on the basis of his primary exhortation (rhetorically called the probatio): the Philippian Christians should share the same mind and seek the best interests of one another, rooted in the example of Jesus in His humiliation and exaltation, as they saw embodied in himself, Timothy, and Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:1-30).

Paul began to shift into what we consider Philippians 3:1-4:1 with to loipon in Greek. Literally “that which remains or is left,” it is most often translated, as in the NET, as “finally.” While to loipon can, and has, been used to indicate a transition into a conclusion, by Paul’s time it was also simply a way of making a transition between arguments or points. Perhaps Paul, as a good preacher, began signaling toward a conclusion long before he reached it; but since so much of his Letter to the Philippians remains, we will consider Paul as simply transitioning into a new argument.

Paul’s transitionary exhortation encouraged the Philippian Christians to rejoice in the Lord (Philippians 3:1). He will repeat this exhortation, with emphasis, in Philippians 4:4. He felt as if he was repeating things he had already taught them, but was not bothered by it: it was safer for them to have the important things reinforced time and time again (Philippians 3:1). We do not need to choose whether Paul felt this way regarding what he had just finished encouraging or regarding his impending warning; the sentiment would be appropriate either way, or for both.

While Philippians 3:1-21 remains part of his probatio, Paul shifted away from a more general exhortation about Christian life and faithfulness toward warnings regarding a prospective danger, countering potential arguments before they would arise. Paul warned the Philippian Christians to beware, or watch out, for the “dogs,” the “evil workers,” those who “mutilate the flesh,” in Philippians 3:2. These are not separate categories, but all refer to the same group or type of people: “Judaizing” teachers, the kind who had already sown discord and confusion among the churches of Galatia and in Corinth (cf. 2 Corinthians, Galatians). Normally Jewish people would speak of Gentile pagans as “dogs” (cf. Mark 7:27), and not the well-behaved indoor kind; we believe Paul thus reversed the expected imagery by speaking of these opponents as “mutilators of the flesh,” with the Greek katatome sounding very much like the standard word for circumcision (peritome). These are very strong and sharp words from Paul, and must be appropriately contextualized in our interpretation. As Paul would go on to indicate shortly, he himself was circumcised (Philippians 3:5); he had Timothy circumcised so he could more effectively minister with Paul (Acts 16:3); he was on record declaring how neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counted for anything, but faith working through love (Galatians 5:6). Paul’s strong language here intended to condemn not Judaism or circumcision itself but the imposition of circumcision upon Gentile Christians.

Paul would then go on to appropriate circumcision, in a sense, for all Christians: we are the circumcision; we provide religious service before God by His Spirit; we exult in Jesus; we do not put our faith or confidence in the flesh, that is, we do not rely on human standards of merit or standing (Philippians 3:3). In this way Paul would counter any suggestion the Philippian Christians proved deficient unless and until they received circumcision and observed the Law of Moses, for they were already signed and sealed into the covenant between God and all people in Christ Jesus through His Spirit.

Paul made mention of such human standards of merit or standing because he well anticipated how the “Judaizing” teachers might come and commend themselves on the basis of their standing as Israelites, descended from Abraham, observing the Law. To that end Paul reminded the Philippian Christians of his own Israelite credentials: he was circumcised on the eighth day (thus born into Israel, not a proselyte), a Benjaminite of Israel; a “Hebrew of Hebrews” (which most likely meant he and his family were conversant with Hebrew and Aramaic, and not only Greek like many Hellenistic Jewish people); a Pharisee by confession and practice; a persecutor of the church in zeal; reckoned blameless by the standard of observance of the Law of Moses (Philippians 3:4-6). Saul of Tarsus, therefore, could easily match and argue the finer points of Jewish faith and practice with any of these “Judaizing” teachers; in fact, it would have been less disruptive in life for Paul to have been among them and to have maintained similar viewpoints as they had.

Yet Paul no longer maintained those viewpoints. Paul confessed how he had valued everything about his life as a devout Pharisee as Greek kerde, a term used in accounting to refer to gain or profit, but now he reckoned it as Greek zemia, the contrasting accounting term for loss, debit, or liability (Philippians 3:7). Thus we should understand the decision of the NET to translate these terms as “assets” and “liabilities” according to the custom of accounting: it does not mean or demand Paul considered his former standing in Judaism as holding him back or dragging him down as a Christian, as a problem or something from which he needed to escape or hide. It was not even just about his standing and position in Judaism: Paul intensified his message doubly, for he considered everything now as not merely zemia, as loss, debit, or liability, but even as skubala! Greek skubala was a vulgar word which could be used to describe feces but was more often used in reference to decaying and spoiled food.

We must avoid saying something Paul himself did not say. He did not say he was trash, or that everything in his life really was trash. His point was less to denigrate the life he had lived before Jesus and much more to emphasize the surpassing importance and value of knowing Christ Jesus the Lord, for whom Paul suffered the loss of all things (Philippians 3:8). Paul would never stop being an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, well educated in the customs of Moses and the conventions of Greek rhetoric. If we denigrate Paul’s standing in Judaism as useless, we invalidate the power of Paul’s comparison; this whole premise only works if there were some actual value perceived in his standing as an Israelite and a Pharisee. Paul’s point was not about how useless it was to be Jewish; it was how he perceived everything as useless in comparison to knowing Christ Jesus as his Lord and to gain and be found in Him, not by righteousness he could attempt to claim by observing the Law of Moses, but the righteousness from God which comes from Christ’s own righteousness (Philippians 3:9).

Paul’s insistence on “knowing” Jesus did not merely involve knowing facts about Jesus, or intellectually grasping ideas or realities about Jesus; as God is one in relational unity, God called Paul and all of us to share in relational unity with Him and one another, and so Paul sought to know Jesus relationally and thus share in and with Him. The understanding of Greek dia pisteos Christou has been argued for generations, whether the genitive should be understood as through the faith of Christ which Paul, and all believers should have in Him, or as the faithfulness of Christ Himself. Neither would prove theologically inaccurate in any way: believers must maintain faith and confidence in Christ Jesus, and Christ indeed proved faithful and such is the basis on which we can be saved (e.g. Romans 3:21-31, 8:1-11, 10:9-10). The Reformers tended to insist on the former, which has colored the perspective on this passage in many translations and in a lot of Christian discourse; nevertheless, in context, the latter, as seen in the NET, makes better sense. Jesus’ faithfulness allowed and facilitated the advancement, promotion, and acceptance of faith in Jesus; Paul could only maintain faith in Jesus to stand before Him without any expectation works of the Law of Moses could justify him because of it (cf. Romans 8:1-11).

In this way Paul was using his own story and theological and doctrinal formulations to both prepare the Philippian Christians to resist any of the arguments the “Judaizing” teachers might use while also providing valuable instruction in the contrast between attempts to stand justified before God by observing works of the Law and standing before God by faith in Jesus based on Jesus’ faithfulness in His life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. For Paul to have learned of Christ and all God had accomplished in Christ but then to expect and insist upon observance of the Law of Moses to obtain justification would prove discordant; if it were so for someone with exquisite Jewish qualifications, how much more discordant would it prove for Gentile Christians who were never made subject to the Law of Moses, and who had learned of Jesus and received the Spirit of God without having first submitted to the Law of Moses?

So we can appreciate the immense value in knowing Christ and sharing in His sufferings so we might gain Him and the resurrection of life. We also should consider any earthly credentials or standing as loss or liability, even as decaying trash in comparison to the immeasurable value of knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and gaining Him and the resurrection in Him. No other thing we have on earth will be able to redeem us, save us, or allow us to stand before God on the final day. If we have nothing other than Jesus, we still have everything we ever need; we need to allow this truth to settle deeply in our minds and in our faith, and to apply it appropriately both in terms of our doctrine and teaching and how we live our lives. May we always rejoice in the Lord Jesus, and be found in Him and share in the resurrection of life on that final day!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Gospel in Life

Yes, the story of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth is news, and good news at that. Yet from the beginning the Gospel was more than mere information. All that God accomplished in Christ should profoundly affect the way we view ourselves and our environment and how we think, feel, and act in our daily lives.

From the beginning, the proclamation of the Kingdom (or Reign) of God included and often featured what we would now deem ethical and moral instruction. Jesus went about preaching the impending Reign of God according to Matthew 4:23, and we get an idea of at least some of the things Jesus would have thus taught in the “Sermon on the Mount” which Matthew recorded in Matthew 5:3-7:27. In this teaching Jesus encouraged completely depending on God, treating others the way you would want them to treat you, loving even your enemies, and maintaining a standard of righteous thinking, feeling, and behavior beyond the requirements of the Law. Luke would provide witness to a similar sermon and many comparable exhortations in Luke 6:24-49. While the Apostle Paul would often provide deep and profound theological and Christological reflections and instruction in his letters to the churches, he also would provide more concrete exhortations toward righteous and holy thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in Christ (e.g. Romans 12:1-15:33, Ephesians 4:1-6:18).

On what basis did Jesus and the Apostles provide this kind of ethical and moral teaching? Many take hold of Paul’s description of a “law of Christ” in Galatians 6:2 (as well as James’ appeal to the “law of liberty” and the “royal law” in James 1:25, 2:8) and wish to conceive of the Kingdom of God in Christ as featuring a “new law” in contrast to the “old law,” the Law of Moses, the instructions God gave in the Hebrew Bible.

And yet there is no New Testament text comparable to the law codes of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and for good reasons. What God accomplished in the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus was not without law or inherently contradictory to law; if anything, the Gospel demonstrates how Jesus embodied and fulfilled the story and Law of Israel and its God. In Romans 7:1-25, Paul well demonstrated the challenges and limitations of law: even when the law is ideal, good, right, and holy, human beings are not, and sin seizes its opportunity and we transgress. Peter wisely understood how the Law of Moses proved a yoke and a burden neither he and his generation, or any previous generation, of Israelites were able to well uphold and bear (Acts 15:10). Much of Paul’s argumentation in Galatians sought to demonstrate how no one could be justified by works of the Law of Moses, and this would prove true of any law code (Galatians 2:16, 3:1-29).

Paul spoke of Christians as “not under law, but under grace” in Romans 6:14. If anyone were to have a particular affinity for a law code, it would be Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews and a Pharisee (cf. Philippians 3:5). Yet he came to understand how God fulfilled all the Law and the promises in Jesus the Christ; as a result, in Christ God established a new covenant made under better promises, with the standard being the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus the Christ, the Son of the living God (Colossians 2:14-15). The Law separated Jewish people from Gentiles; by nullifying it in His flesh and death, Jesus was able to reconcile Jewish people and those from the nations in His resurrection and lordship, killing the hostility between them (Ephesians 2:11-22). Through the love, grace, and mercy displayed in His life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, Jesus provided a new basis and ground upon which to stand before God: not through presumed justification by doing the works of the Law or any other law code, but through the relational unity made possible by the reconciliation Jesus has effected by His life, death, and resurrection (Romans 3:23-31).

Paul would go on to reject any notion of antinomianism: we have no justification for sinning while under grace, because we have become obedient to the standard of teaching, the Gospel, to which we have been committed (Romans 6:15-23). The goal of the Christian is not to find some kind of justification or excuse for doing whatever he or she wants to do; instead, the goal must be to conform to the image of God in Christ, and therefore to follow in the ways of Jesus laid out in the Gospel.

To this end the Apostles would continually ground their exhortations regarding how Christians should think, feel, and act in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. The Gospel would become the anchor and guide of the Christian life; Jesus was the Pioneer, blazing a path for all of His disciples to follow (cf. Hebrews 2:10-13). Christians should forgive one another “as God in Christ forgave you,” emphasized both by Jesus in His prayer and by Paul in his exhortations (Matthew 6:12, 14-15, Ephesians 4:32). Jesus gave His “new commandment” to His disciples just before His death: it was to love one another “as I have loved you” (John 13:34; cf. Ephesians 5:2). One can reasonably argue this is the “law” Paul had in mind in Galatians 6:2, and we love one another as Jesus has loved us when we bear one another’s burdens. For that matter, James’ “royal law” is “to love your neighbor as yourself” in James 2:8, affirmed by Jesus in His instruction but more powerfully in His embodied example on the cross (Matthew 22:34-40, Romans 5:6-11). Therefore, even when using the illustration of a “law,” the Apostles were not imposing a law code framework on the work God accomplished in Jesus: the Reign of God in Christ is not like unto the covenant between God and Israel governed by the Law of Moses. Christians are not called to make a couple of tablets and inscribe a law code. Instead, Christians are called to be like Jesus the Christ.

One can thus profitably understand everything about the New Testament as the Apostles and their associates working out and making sense of what life should be like now that Jesus lived, died, was raised from the dead, ascended to the Father, was made both Lord and Christ, and will return again soon, and to encourage Christians to live accordingly in the face of both late Second Temple Judaism and the Roman Empire. Therefore, the task for Christians today would be to gain wisdom from their witness as they would seek to work out and make sense of what like should be like in the twenty-first century in America or wherever we live in light of how Jesus lived, died, was raised from the dead, ascended to the Father, was made both Lord and Christ, and will return again soon.

We could spend all kinds of time going through each of the commands God has given us in Christ and how we are to observe them today, and there is profit in doing so at other opportunities. Yet we should quickly notice how all of them are established and grounded not in some appeal to some kind of abstracted law code, principles for healthful living, or some other kind of standard other than what God has accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6): therefore, all we should think, feel, and do should be grounded in the witness of God in Christ. Our goal should never be to uphold a given culture or justify any other kind of standard or position: all such things are worldly structures, in some way or another empowered by the powers and principalities, and no matter how they might give lip service to some aspect or another of God’s purposes in Christ, in others they will resist the manifestation of God’s Reign through Jesus.

As Christians go through life, they should seek to govern how they view, feel, and treat all people and things in light of all things God has accomplished in Jesus in His life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. If we cannot make good sense of how Jesus is glorified or honored in our viewpoints, behaviors, or justifications, we do well to repent and re-align with Jesus the Crucified Lord. If people cannot see the humble, lowly Servant of God in us in how we live our lives and what we support, justify, or defend, we give them reason to blaspheme, and our hypocrisy would speak against us on the final day; we would thus need to repent of how we have clung to various worldly standards empowered by the powers and principalities in resistance to the ways of Jesus. If we cannot find evidence for our patterns of thought, behavior, and actions in the Jesus revealed in the Scriptures, we might well be guilty of having fashioned a Jesus in our own image, and such a Jesus has no power or strength and will not be able to justify us on the final day.

God has given Christians of His Spirit so they might discern, based upon the witness of Jesus and the Apostles, how they might best reflect the fruit of the Spirit and thus the ways of Jesus in their time and place, and be empowered to thus live transformed lives in the way of the Christ (Romans 8:1-11, Galatians 5:16-26). But we cannot do this by our own strength alone; we must seek and receive power from God through His Spirit to endure and overcome, and to be transformed by our continual experience of the profound love God has displayed for us in Christ (Ephesians 3:14-21, 6:10-18). The cultivation and development of holiness and righteousness in Christ does not somehow take place in isolation away from God, His Spirit, His Gospel, His people, or His strength; it can only take place when Christians are well and appropriately grounded in the Gospel, ever seeking to grow in love further into the Body of Christ, and to cultivate knowledge, insight, and wisdom to know and to do that which glorifies God in Christ at every moment (cf. Ephesians 4:11-16). May we display the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and hope of the imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord and Savior, in our lives, and obtain in Him the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

God’s Divinity in Creation

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (Romans 1:20).

In Romans 1:18-20 Paul makes an important argument: everyone has been given sufficient understanding of who God based within His creation. We recognize how God’s eternal power is evident in the creation: from the fixed properties of the universe that facilitate life down to the functioning of DNA, we can see the hand of God in how things exist. But how does the creation testify to God’s divinity or His “divine nature”?

According to Deuteronomy 6:4, God is One. Yet we see in other Scriptures that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God (John 1:1, 10:30, Colossians 2:9, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:21). The best understanding of this mystery is to declare that God is One Being in Three Persons, for all other alternatives run into Biblical challenges. If the Three are just different manifestations of one person, how can all three testify at the baptism of the Son, or how can both the Father and the Son witness to the Son (Matthew 3:16-17, John 8:17-18)? If God the Father is really God, and the Son and the Spirit are divine but not fully God, how could Paul say that in Jesus the Godhead dwelt fully in bodily form (Colossians 2:9)?

God as the Three in One does make some sense. John declares that God is love in 1 John 4:8; by definition, love is seeking the best interest of the object of the love (cf. John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 13:1-12, etc.). If God is but one person, that would make Him the ultimate narcissist; this cannot be. God is love because of the love that exists among the Three.

God’s divine nature, then, features the Three in One: God as one, not in person, but in nature, being, character, will (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3). In short, God is one in relational unity. The relationship amongst the Three is so deep and intimate that we can speak of God as one Being, using the singular “He” or “Him.”

God’s divine nature, then, is as the Three in One. Yet how is this evident in creation?

And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27).

Humans are made in God’s likeness; this does not mean we are gods or that God is a man (John 4:24). Instead we manifest the metaphysical characteristics as God’s creatures: consciousness and the soul.

What do we humans seek after in life? Different answers might be given: money, stuff, fame, power, and so on and so forth. While people might be motivated by different desires, what is at the heart of many of them? People want a comfortable lifestyle and many of the things listed above, but who wants to have them alone? People might want to be as wealthy as Ebenezer Scrooge, but who wants to be Ebenezer Scrooge?

When it comes down to it, people want to be loved, known, and appreciated. In short, people are seeking relationships. Psychologists are discovering that we are wired for relationships; it is one of our most fundamental needs in our existence!

When people think of relationship, the relationship between a husband and wife often comes to mind. What happens in that situation? A man and a woman, unrelated, somehow meet each other. They get to know each other and they fall in love with each other. They commit to one another. The two become one; they are still two different humans, but it’s about “us” more than it is about “me”. Such is a wonderful time, full of creativity; after all, how many songs, books, and plays have been written, or paintings or sculptures or other pieces of art made, on account of the desires of love? There is a natural desire to share in love, and often there are offspring that come on the basis of that love.

Is this not God’s divine nature manifest in His creation?

As we have seen, He is the Triune God, the Three in One. A man and his wife becoming one is analogous to the unity within God (Genesis 2:24). And just as the love between the man and the woman leads to creativity and various creative acts, not the least of which being offspring, what else motivated God to create all things but love? He wanted to share the love within Himself with the beautiful creation which He made, particularly with His “offspring,” man made in His image (Genesis 1:1-2:3, Acts 17:26-28).

There is a reason why the metaphors in the Bible all “work.” The metaphors are effective because the God who created the universe intended for us to understand our need for relationship with Him and with one another within the way the creation functions. We can understand marriage between a man and a woman; we can therefore understand Israel’s relationship with God, and our relationship with Christ, in a similar way (cf. Hosea 1-3, Ephesians 5:22-33). We can understand the bond between parent and child; we can therefore understand our relationship with our heavenly Father in a similar way (Luke 15:11-32, Romans 8:15-17). None of these are coincidental.

It is not good for man to be alone; how can it be when he is made in the image of the Three in One, the God who is one in relationship? We are made to seek a relationship with our Creator who loved us and, in so doing, to maintain relationships with one another as well. The Bible testifies to it. The creation testifies to it. Let us praise and thank God that His divine nature is evident in the creation. Let us seek to maintain a relationship with the Triune God, seeking to be conformed to the image of the Son. Let us seek to be one with one another as the Father and Son are one (John 17:20-23), and let us thus honor and glorify God!

Ethan R. Longhenry

God’s Creative Word

By the word of YHWH were the heavens made / and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth (Psalm 33:6).

How we believe language communicates has changed over the years. These days we tend to use language to describe things as they are, taking a “just the facts, ma’am” approach to how we communicate. This holds true even in fiction: the story may not be true but is nonetheless written in descriptive fashion.

Descriptive uses of language are found frequently in the Bible, telling the story of Israel, Jesus, and the church. Yet Israelites recognized that language can do more than just describe: language also functions creatively and evocatively. They knew this because they put their trust in YHWH as their God, and from the beginning YHWH spoke the heavens and earth into being (Genesis 1:1-2:3, Psalm 33:1-8). In all the cultures around them people came up with imaginative stories which attempted to describe why things are the way they are; all of them attempted to describe what the Israelites knew could not truly be described but only brought into being through God speaking it into existence.

After the creation God’s Word did not stop bringing things to life. Israel might have thought that God was sustaining them with manna from heaven, yet where did that manna come from and how did God bring it forth? Moses said that it was designed to teach Israel that man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from YHWH’s mouth (Deuteronomy 8:3). The Word of God was life for Israel if they would only love God and live according to that Word; if they turned aside from that Word they would be choosing death (Deuteronomy 30:15-20). In Psalm 19:1-6 David praises God for His benevolent care for mankind as reflected in the structure of the heavens; he immediately turns to praise God for His Law, testimony, precepts, and commandments for their benevolent care, as much a part of the structure of the creation as the sun, moon, and stars (Psalm 19:7-11). Israel had every reason to maintain steadfast confidence when God made promises, for once He spoke them He would assuredly give it life, to make it so (Isaiah 46:9-10, 55:10).

God had promised the Immanuel child, “God with us,” and He was born, not just as a man, but as the Word made flesh (Matthew 1:22-25, John 1:1-14). John expects us to understand Jesus to be God’s Word, as that which brought into existence the heavens and the earth and which continues to sustain and uphold (John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:1-3). Jesus blessed bread and it multiplied; He then spoke of Himself as the Bread of life since He as the Word gives life to all things (John 6:1-69). Living water could flow from Him in the Spirit to others since He is the embodiment of the Source of life (John 7:37-39). Through His life, death, and resurrection Jesus can promise abundant life because God spoke the Word into existence and the Word continues to give life (John 10:10).

Through the Word made flesh, Jesus of Nazareth, we can overcome sin and death and obtain eternal life (Romans 8:1-5, 1 Corinthians 15:50-58). The revealed Word in Scripture is no less alive and active according to Hebrews 4:12; it has life through the Spirit which inspired it and the power of God which works through it, convicting the hearts of men regarding the Gospel unto repentance toward God, obedience to the Lord, and sanctification in the Spirit (Romans 1:16, 10:17, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Ephesians 1:13, Colossians 3:16, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 3:14).

While God communicated to mankind in ways he could understand, His Word is a message ultimately unlike any other message. The Word of God does not merely describe the way things are; God has created through His Word and continues to provide life through that Word. We encounter that Word in the pages of Scripture and embodied in the Lord Jesus: God’s message is never just ink on a page, or pixels on a screen, for paper fades, ink runs, screens lose power and die, yet the Word of God remains living and active, bringing into being according to the purpose God has established for it. The Word of God is living, active, and powerful, yet operates on the heart and soul of mankind, not to be left as words in a nice leather book set in the corner or glanced at during the assembly (Hebrews 4:12). Do we want life and to have it abundantly? Then we must find life in God’s Word, Incarnate and Revealed, and live for Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Timothy and Epaphroditus

Now I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you soon, so that I too may be encouraged by hearing news about you. For there is no one here like him who will readily demonstrate his deep concern for you. Others are busy with their own concerns, not those of Jesus Christ. But you know his qualifications, that like a son working with his father, he served with me in advancing the gospel. So I hope to send him as soon as I know more about my situation, though I am confident in the Lord that I too will be coming to see you soon.
But for now I have considered it necessary to send Epaphroditus to you. For he is my brother, coworker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister to me in my need. Indeed, he greatly missed all of you and was distressed because you heard that he had been ill. In fact he became so ill that he nearly died. But God showed mercy to him – and not to him only, but also to me – so that I would not have grief on top of grief. Therefore I am all the more eager to send him, so that when you see him again you can rejoice and I can be free from anxiety. So welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor people like him, since it was because of the work of Christ that he almost died. He risked his life so that he could make up for your inability to serve me (Philippians 2:19-30).

Paul would have the Philippian shine as bright lights of the good news of Jesus in a darkened world. They were not left without examples; Paul would strongly commend Timothy and Epaphroditus to them.

Philippi was a Roman colony in Macedonia (part of modern Greece); Paul first visited the area and preached Jesus around 51 (cf. Acts 16:11-40). Paul wrote to the Christians in Philippi most likely around 60-61 from Rome while living under house arrest there (cf. Philippians 1:1). Paul thanked the Philippian Christians for their joint participation in his ministry and prayed for them to abound in love and make good decisions to share in Jesus’ praise at His return (Philippians 1:1-11). He explained how his circumstances had worked to advance the Gospel; if he were to die, he would go and be with Christ, but he was confident he would continue to faithfully serve God, and the Philippian Christians, while in the body (Philippians 1:12-26). Paul set forth his main exhortation: the Philippian Christians should live as citizens of the Gospel, standing firm together in it, and to suffer well for God in Christ (Philippians 1:27-30). Paul had begun establishing and defending this exhortation by encouraging the Philippian Christians to be of the same mind and to seek the interests of one another and not just themselves, and encouraged them to maintain the mind of Christ, to suffer humiliation in order to be exalted on the final day, working out their salvation, shining as lights in the world as God willed and worked through them (Philippians 2:1-18). Paul continued the probatio, his main argument and its reasoning, of his letter to the Philippians with messages regarding first Timothy and then Epaphroditus (Philippians 2:19-30).

Paul felt compelled to prepare the Philippian Christians to receive Timothy in the future so they might receive him well and appropriately when he would arrive (Philippians 2:19-24). Paul commended Timothy: the Philippian Christians themselves knew Timothy and his qualifications, how he had well served Paul in the advancement of the Gospel like a son would for his father (Philippians 2:22). Paul deemed Timothy as the best of his fellow associates, the one who genuinely cared for his fellow Christians and who proved less concerned for his own interests (Philippians 2:20-21). Paul would send Timothy once he knew what his fate would be; he was confident he would soon follow afterward as well (Philippians 2:22-24).

Timothy was the son of Eunice, a Jewish Christian woman, and a Greek man (Acts 16:1, 2 Timothy 1:5). Timothy had only recently joined Paul’s preaching entourage when they had first come to Philippi (Acts 16:3, 11-40). Timothy had already been sent once by Paul to Macedonia in Acts 19:22, which might well have involved a visit to the Christians in Philippi. We here discern the great confidence and affection Paul maintained for Timothy. Paul wrote as if the Philippian Christians also held Timothy in honor, although the encouragement of such an attitude might well lay behind Paul’s strong commendation for him.

Paul then spoke highly of Epaphroditus, calling him his brother, co-worker, fellow soldier, an apostolon and leiturgon for Paul in his need, and whom he was sending back to the Philippians (Philippians 2:25-30). The name “Epaphroditus” means “beloved of Aphrodite”; his name strongly suggests he was born a Greek pagan in Philippi and converted at some point. Greek apostolon is the word for “apostle,” but is best understood here as “one sent,” a man with a specific commission; Greek leiturgon generally involves religious service. Therefore, based on Philippians 2:25, we have strong reason to believe Epaphroditus was commissioned by the Philippian Christians to visit Paul and deliver to him the financial gift the church was giving him and encouraged him to jointly participate with Paul in any spiritual service he might need. At some point in his journey, Epaphroditus fell ill with some kind of severe illness; somehow word about this illness made it back to the Philippian Christians, and they were quite concerned about him (Philippians 2:26-27). Paul shared in their anxiety and concern: Epaphroditus almost died of his illness, but the Lord had mercy on him and on Paul lest Paul experience yet another sorrow upon the sorrows he was already enduring in his house arrest (Philippians 2:27). Epaphroditus missed his fellow Philippian Christians greatly, and all the more so when he learned of their distress for him; therefore, Paul was happy to send him back so they might rejoice and Paul could experience a little less anxiety about it all (Philippians 2:26, 28). Paul did not want the Philippian Christians to think any less of Epaphroditus because of anything which had taken place: he commended Epaphroditus as a fellow-worker and fellow-soldier, willing to risk his life to make up what was lacking in the Philippian Christians’ service to Paul, and they should welcome and honor him (Philippians 2:29-30).

We have good reason to believe Epaphroditus would have been the person who would deliver and read aloud this letter Paul was writing to the Philippian Christians, and so Paul wanted to make sure any concerns the Philippian Christians might have maintained about Epaphroditus were allayed. In fact, the Philippian Christians would do well to look up to and emulate Epaphroditus in his life of faith and service for the Lord Jesus Christ.

Some suggest what Paul would then relate in Philippians 2:19-30 regarding Timothy and Epaphroditus represents some kind of digression or a travelogue of sorts. Yet we can understand Paul’s commendation of Timothy and Epaphroditus within the context of Paul’s probatio: they represent examples of the kind of behavior and character which Paul has been sketching out in Philippians 2:1-18. Was it really possible for Christians to give regard to the interests of others and not only their own? Yes, Paul would say; consider Timothy. Could they really maintain the mind of Christ among them? Epaphroditus was already living that out, risking his life to fulfill his commission and provide appropriate service for Paul and thus the Lord Jesus.

Thus Paul commended both Timothy and Epaphroditus to the Philippian Christians as faithful, effective servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, worthy of consideration and emulation. Yes, the upward call of the prize in Christ Jesus remains lofty and challenging; we have always needed to see good examples of the faith being brought to life to encourage us in our journey forward. May we live faithfully for the Lord Jesus Christ so that others may be able to point to our examples as encouraging in the faith and be the Timothy and the Epaphroditus of our own generation, and obtain the resurrection of life in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Gospel in Revelation

Argument, controversy, and dispute always attend to the Book of Revelation. The majority of those who believe they fully understand Revelation tend to understand the images and visions involved in ways which stand quite at variance with the Gospel as presented in the rest of the New Testament. A good number of Christians seek to avoid the Book of Revelation, often feeling more confident about what it does not mean over what Jesus was making known in the vision, and apprehensive about it all because of all the wild theories and doomsday cults who seem to revel in Revelation. One might therefore think it a reasonable conclusion to wonder if the Gospel can be found much in the Book of Revelation, or why one might try to find it there. And yet it is the God behind the Gospel who gave the revelation which belongs to Jesus the Christ, the star of the Gospel, to John (Revelation 1:1). The visions within the Book of Revelation, in fact, are founded upon the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, and powerfully portray Him as the Lord and Christ consistent with, and not in a spirit contrary to, the witness of the Gospel.

As the visions within Revelation transitioned into a whole new phase and dimension, John was shown a great sign: a pregnant woman about to give birth (Revelation 12:1-2). A powerful dragon sought to consume the Child as soon as He was born (Revelation 12:3-4). The Child was born, and He would rule the nations with a rod of iron (Revelation 12:5; cf. Psalm 2:8-9). By common confession, the Child born in this vision represents Jesus of Nazareth Himself; the dragon, Satan (Revelation 12:9). In this way, God powerfully attested to Jesus’ life within the visions of Revelation.

One of the first visions John received featured the throne scene in heaven (Revelation 4:1-5:14). God would introduce the central figure in the Book of Revelation in this scene: the “Lion of Judah,” the “root of David” who had “conquered” and was worthy to open the seals on a scroll and make known all which would be presented in Revelation (Revelation 5:5). When John looked to see who this “Lion of Judah” would be, he saw a Lamb as though slain (Revelation 5:6). Throughout the rest of the visions within the Book of Revelation, Jesus, the Lion of Judah and Root of David, would be predominantly presented as this Lamb who had been slain (Revelation 5:8, 12, 13; 6:1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 16; 7:9, 10, 14, 17; 8:1; 12:11; 13:8; 14:1, 4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22, 23, 27; 22:1, 3). In case there had been any confusion, those before the throne praised Jesus the Lamb as worthy to open the scrolls because He had been killed, and He had purchased people from all kinds of tribes and nations with His blood (Revelation 5:9). In this way Jesus’ sacrificial death proved critical and foundational to everything displayed in the visions of the Book of Revelation, for Jesus was primarily presented as the Lamb who suffered and died so all might obtain the forgiveness of sins.

John spoke of Jesus as the “firstborn from the dead” in Revelation 1:5. Likewise, when Jesus first appeared before John as the “one like a Son of Man,” He spoke of Himself as the First and the Last, the One Who Lives, for He had died but now was alive, and now held the keys of Death and Hades (Revelation 1:17-18, 2:8). As we have seen, Jesus was portrayed in Revelation most often as the Lamb who was slain and yet is very much alive. Thus indeed Jesus died, but on the third day He rose from the dead: because of His resurrection, Jesus is now alive again. Jesus’ resurrection may not be the most prominent theme in the Book of Revelation; nevertheless, Revelation does bear witness to Jesus’ resurrection, and His resurrection proved necessary to allow for all which would be made known in Revelation.

In Revelation 12:5, after the Child was born, He was suddenly caught up to God and His throne. This event would catalyze a great conflict which would eventually lead to Satan falling from heaven to earth and all which would be displayed in Revelation 13:1-20:10. By common confession, this event represented Jesus’ ascension, to which Revelation therefore also bears witness.

In Revelation 1:5, John did not only speak of Jesus as the firstborn from the dead, but also as the Ruler over the kings of the earth; He was able to appoint Christians as a kingdom because He reigns as Lord (Revelation 1:6). The Lamb who was slain but is alive did not just sit around in heaven: the Lamb reigned over heaven and earth, and those before His throne declared Him worthy to receive power and might (cf. Revelation 5:12-13). Jesus pronounced all the judgments presented in Revelation as the Lord and Judge of all nations; while the beast raged and presumed himself the greatest power, Jesus strengthened and sustained those who resisted and/or overcame him by suffering even unto death, and Jesus would eventually ride forth on the white horse, judging the beast and all stood in opposition against His rule and purposes (Revelation 6:1-11:19, 13:1-19:21). In so doing, Jesus was not somehow being portrayed in radical differentiation than the Jesus we encounter in the Gospel accounts: Jesus was given all such power because He suffered, died, and was raised again, and such would be the way all who would overcome the world in Jesus would likewise triumph. Furthermore, as Jesus had pronounced judgment on Jerusalem and His fellow Israelites who rejected Him, so judgment was also pronounced against the beast and all those who would continue to reject Jesus and His ways (cf. Matthew 24:1-36, etc.).

The final visions of Revelation featured a judgment scene before the great white throne and then the “new heavens” and the “new earth,” in which the people of God, glorified by God, came down from heaven, described in terms of unimaginable wealth in gold and precious jewels, with God and the Lamb dwelling in their midst forever (Revelation 20:11-22:5). After these visions, Jesus would twice declare how He would be coming soon, which John would affirm as the concluding words of Revelation (Revelation 22:7, 20). In this way Revelation bore witness to our hope and confidence in Jesus’ imminent return.

The Book of Revelation does not prove antithetical to any aspect of the message of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. Quite the contrary; without the Gospel, there would be no revelation of Jesus for God to give to John. Revelation remains saturated with images and descriptions from the prophets of the Hebrew Bible, yet they are often adapted and modified to work according to all God has accomplished in Jesus. In its own way, Revelation provides encouragement to Christians to stand firm in Jesus as Lord and to follow His ways, to serve the Lamb who was slain and overcome His enemies, not with coercion or violence, but with love, charity, and sacrifice. Jesus will have the final victory because He already overcame sin and death through His life, death, resurrection, ascension, and lordship. May we all jointly participate with Jesus in His Kingdom so we might share in the resurrection of His life when He returns. Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The Letter of Jeremiah

In Jeremiah 29:1-23 was preserved a letter which Jeremiah wrote to those Judahites who were exiled with Jehoiachin king of Judah to Babylon around 593 BCE, encouraging the Judahites to expect a protracted exile and to seek the welfare of the city in which they had found themselves. Yet the Greek Septuagint also preserved an additional text often called the Letter of Jeremiah. What is this Letter of Jeremiah? What is its relationship to the Book of Baruch (1 Baruch)? Did Jeremiah ben Hilkiah the prophet, or Baruch his secretary, write it? How should Christians regard the Letter of Jeremiah?

The Letter of Jeremiah purported itself to be a letter which Jeremiah the prophet sent along with those Judahites being exiled to Babylon in the wake of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BCE (Letter of Jeremiah 1:1 / Baruch 6:1). The Letter of Jeremiah has been preserved in Greek; most scholars believe it was written originally in Hebrew or Aramaic. In the Greek Septuagint, the Letter of Jeremiah was preserved as an independent text; in the Latin Vulgate, it was preserved as the sixth chapter of the Book of Baruch; in the Ethiopian tradition, it was reckoned with the “Rest of Jeremiah” with some other apocryphal materials.

While the Letter of Jeremiah does seem to be an independent composition, most English versions of the Apocrypha follow the Latin Vulgate’s lead, and thus it can be often found as Baruch 6:1-73; it can also be found and read online here. The letter began as if Jeremiah were writing to the Judahites to be exiled in Babylon on account of their sins, and should expect to be there for quite some time, up to seven generations (Letter of Jeremiah 1:1-3 / Baruch 6:1-3). The point of the work would be set forth in the Letter of Jeremiah 1:4-7 / Baruch 6:4-7: in Babylon the Judahites would see all kinds of gods made from all kinds of materials, highly regarded by the local inhabitants who would encourage the Judahites to join in their service; they should instead serve God alone, and His angel would be watching over them there.

The rest of the Letter of Jeremiah featured a series of polemical arguments and exhortations against such idolatry. Such statues could not talk or move but would collect dust; their priests pilfer some of the precious materials made for the statue for their own regular or nefarious purposes; even if they held a scepter or a weapon, they proved unable to defend themselves; the doors of the temples were locked lest robbers enter and steal; the statues are blackened by smoke and animals freely move around on and among them and are consumed by them; therefore, they should not be feared or honored as gods (Letter of Jeremiah 1:8-23/ Baruch 6:8-23). All the gold and gifts showered upon such gods were for naught, for they are not felt or enjoyed by them; if the statue fell over, they could not get up themselves, but would need to be set back up by people; priests sell the sacrifices offered to these gods for their own profit or use the food for themselves without regard to the poor; therefore, they should not be feared or honored as gods (Letter of Jeremiah 1:24-29 / Baruch 6:24-29). How can such things be called gods when food was made for them which they would never eat, priests would rave before them but nothing would happen, nothing happened whether one acted well or poorly toward them, and they were not able to actually do anything good for anyone in distress or trial (Letter of Jeremiah 1:30-39 / Baruch 6:30-39)?

The Letter of Jeremiah then indicted some of the Babylonians for their practices, bringing the mute to Bel and praying they would speak, or the women waiting to take part in sacred prostitution and then deriding those who were not taken for being less attractive (Letter of Jeremiah 1:40-44 / Baruch 6:40-44). The author wondered how anyone could believe such statues could well and truly represent gods since the priests consult regarding where to hide them when calamity arises, neither the statues nor the ones who made them would live very long, they can be easily taken and plundered, and they cannot raise up kings, justice, or resistance in any way, shape, or form; pretty much everything else proves more useful than such “gods” (Letter of Jeremiah 1:45-59 / Baruch 6:45-59).

The Letter of Jeremiah struck at the heart of such idolatry by considering many of the natural forces often divinized or considered part of the domains of various gods and goddesses in ancient societies, demonstrating how they were not gods themselves but all reflect the hand of God and accomplish His purposes: the sun, moon, stars, lightning, wind, and fire (Letter of Jeremiah 1:60-69 / Baruch 6:60-69). The Letter of Jeremiah concluded by comparing such idol statues to scarecrows: they sat and did nothing and would rot and be consumed, and therefore the upright would not revere such idols or the gods they claimed to represent (Letter of Jeremiah 1:70-73 / Baruch 6:70-73).

Did Jeremiah ben Hilkiah really write the Letter of Jeremiah? The Letter of Jeremiah was never considered canonical as part of the Hebrew Bible, although some early Christians reported at least some Jewish people maintained a “Book of Jeremiah” which included the canonical books of Jeremiah and Lamentations along with the apocryphal Book of Baruch and Letter of Jeremiah. Some early Christians considered the Letter of Jeremiah as part of the works of Jeremiah and considered it inspired and canonical; some other early Christians maintained many doubts about its authenticity, and deemed it apocryphal and pseudepigraphal.

The Letter of Jeremiah no doubt took its inspiration from passages like Jeremiah 10:11, the only verse written in Aramaic in an otherwise Hebrew text, and Isaiah 44:9-20, and from them expressed this powerful polemic against idolatry. But it would prove very challenging to coherently argue Jeremiah ben Hilkiah himself was behind the Letter of Jeremiah, especially comparing the expected timeframes between Jeremiah 1:29 (seventy years) with the Letter of Jeremiah 1:3 (seven generations). Some have even attempted to date the writing of the Letter of Jeremiah to the middle of the fourth century BCE on account of the “seven generations” timeframe; it would make more sense than to suggest a sixth century authorship, but it could also be a sort of rhetorical flourish, indicating a longer exile than had been anticipated. The Letter of Jeremiah is thus generally considered to be an apocryphal and pseudepigraphal work of the Second Temple Period; its terminus ad quem must be somewhere in the middle of the second century BCE, since the Letter of Jeremiah seems to be cited in 2 Maccabees 2:1-3, and a portion of the Letter of Jeremiah in Greek was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QJeremiah).

Therefore, like the Book of Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah most likely represents an apocryphal work written by some anonymous Second Temple Jewish person. Does this mean the Letter of Jeremiah can provide no benefit to Christians? By no means! The Letter of Jeremiah was cited in 2 Maccabees 2:1-3 and found among parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls for the same kind of reason it would remain popular among many early Christians: it well expanded upon the prophetic indictment and condemnation of idolatry. It was not as if Jewish people would be exposed less to the service of idols and intense pressure from those who honored them after the prophets ceased speaking; far from it, in fact! Today we may not think what is presented in the Letter of Jeremiah was bold or controversial, but it would have been very much so in the world of antiquity, both under the dominance of Near Eastern powers like Babylon and Persia as well as Western powers like the Macedonians and Romans. Most of the people around the Jewish people believed the idols represented the gods and goddesses behind the natural forces which could give them health and prosperity or its complete opposite. To forthrightly denounce these statues as lifeless and powerless, and all the forces being served as gods or as the power of gods as really under subjection to the God of heaven remained just as necessary in the latter Persian period and the Ptolemaic, Seleucid, and Roman periods as they had in the days of Assyria and Babylon.

Christians also must be on guard against idolatry, even though our forms of idolatry rarely involve statues in temples (cf. 1 John 5:21). While we do best to recognize the Letter of Jeremiah as apocryphal and pseudepigraphal and therefore not canonical or inspired, we can also appreciate its exhortation and message and what it would have meant for the Jewish people in antiquity, perpetually surrounded by people serving statues as gods, and allow it to help inform how we view and approach the world of Second Temple Judaism which shaped Jesus, the Apostles, and therefore the New Testament and the Christian faith as we know it. May we turn aside from all idols and serve the true and living God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

Letter of Jeremiah (accessed 2025/11/24).

Against the Sexualization of Children

Our subject matter today represents an awful, terrible distortion and perversion of God’s good gifts of life, youth, and sexuality. We would rather not have to discuss such matters; such behaviors and the forces at work to justify or rationalize them, however, thrive in the darkness, and would rather us not consider them and to continue to look away. We owe it to all those who have been affected by such ungodly behavior to present the light of Jesus and the Gospel in regards to these matters, yet fully understand why what we are about to consider might be too much, too difficult, or too painful for many.

Throughout time, various forces have conspired in various ways to sexualize children of different ages for different purposes. There have always been some who have desired to treat children as objects of their sexual desire and fulfillment, no matter what it might mean for that child’s development, health, and life.

These days we speak of such behaviors according to three different categories: pedophilia, in which an adult or older teenager experiences sexual attraction toward prepubescent children (defined generally as younger than 12); hebephilia, in which an adult experiences sexual attraction toward children of pubescent age (defined generally as 10 to 14); and/or ephebophilia, in which an older adult experiences sexual attraction toward children of later adolescent age (defined generally as 13 to 19). “Pedophilia” is often used as shorthand to refer to any or all of the above phenomena.

While some of our definitions or delineations regarding these phenomena might be of more recent coin, the tendencies remain quite ancient. The ancient Greeks remain infamous for the practice of pederasty among the elites, in which an older man of means would show romantic affection for a younger man in his young adolescent or teenage years. We can see the celebration of such relationships in the texts of many of the Greek philosophers (e.g., Plato’s Symposium). Similar kinds of relationships also existed in cultures in parts of Africa, Asia, and Oceania; most of them involved same-sex relationships among men or women.

While many cultures throughout time have considered pedophilia shameful, both hebephilia and ephebophilia were normalized, and remain normalized, in many cultures to this day. Minimum ages of consent and age of marriage in many societies was as low as 11 or 12 in a good number of places until fairly modern times; to this day it is not unheard of to hear of girls of 11 or 12 being married off in some parts of the world, although in all such circumstances it would require parental consent.

While most everyone in Western society today finds the prospect of families marrying off their 11- or 12-year-old daughters revolting, their societies also not long ago normalized the sexualization of children. Popular love songs of the 1950s and 1960s attest to the idolization of sixteen-year-old girls. Many among the elite would maintain inappropriate relationships with teenage girls; sometimes such behavior proved scandalous, yet many such people retained their employment and social standing. Child sex abuse, which we today believe takes place to at least 1 in 5 girls and 1 in 20 boys, may not have been considered approved or appropriate behavior, but it certainly did not come with the kind of condemnation and stigma we maintain for such behaviors today. Some today, in a misguided nostalgia, seek to continue to justify hebephilia/ephebophilia, attempting to create stronger distance between these phenomena and pedophilia, and seeking to rationalize and justify sexual attraction to and the pursuit of very young women.

Jesus affirmed God’s intention for a healthy expression of sexuality within marriage from the beginning: a man should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two become one flesh (Matthew 19:4-6; cf. Genesis 2:24). Anyone thus married who nurtures sexual desire for anyone else commits adultery in his or her heart (Matthew 5:27-30).

The Apostle Paul had much to say regarding porneia, “sexually deviant behavior,” often translated “sexual immorality”: he often condemned it as a work of the flesh and declared those who participated in such things would not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21). Paul would elaborate on the concern: one could not well glorify Jesus and join a member of His body, a Christian, to a sex worker (in Greek, porne; 1 Corinthians 6:12-17). The person who commits porneia (related to porne, and thus can overall be understood as “the kinds of things one would do with a prostitute”) sins against him or herself, and Christians should instead glorify God in their bodies (1 Corinthians 6:18-20).

In this way Paul critiqued and condemned the pagan Greco-Roman society in which he lived, for it normalized visiting with sex workers. Likewise, he perceived the justification or normalization of same-sex sexual relations in Greco-Roman society as a result of their rejection of the God of heaven as God and their elevation of things He created to the place of gods (cf. Romans 1:18-27). While Paul’s concerns go beyond pederasty in Greek society, they certainly would include it. Paul would also warn Christians about sexual uncleanness and lustfulness, and encouraged all Christians to strive for holiness, honor, and purity in their sexuality and expressions thereof (Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Thessalonians 4:1-7).

Other aspects of what God has made known in Christ and in Scripture can be brought to bear on these considerations. The marriage bed is undefiled when husbands and wives love one another and display mutual respect and submission (Ephesians 5:21-33, Titus 2:1-15, Hebrews 13:4, 1 Peter 3:1-7). Attempts to overpower or lord power over others are not commended in Christ; they are deemed as the way the Gentiles and the world work, and it should not be so among Christians, who should seek to serve one another in humility (Matthew 20:25-28, 1 Peter 5:1-4). Christians are also called upon to submit to the earthly authorities and respect the sword of justice they wield (Romans 13:1-7).

On account of all of what God has made known in Christ and through Scripture, therefore, Christians should stand against and resist the sexualization of children.

There can be no defense, justification, or rationalization of any adult sexual behavior with children of any age, whether it be pedophilic, hebephilic, or ephebophilic sexual behaviors. Young children have no capacity to be sexual beings; even as they are developing sexually, adults should be providing them guidance and support as to how to best manage their development and maturity, and any sexual practices imposed upon them can only corrupt and degrade their humanity and sexuality. Pedophilic, hebephilic, or ephebophilic sexual behaviors are sexually deviant behaviors and should be roundly and forthrightly condemned.

For far too long, Christians have made too easy and convenient associations between those who participate in same sex sexual behavior and pedophilia, as if anyone who has same sex sexual desires would also naturally have pedophilic desires. As we have seen, the witness of Scripture provides condemnation of same sex sexual behaviors as well as pedophilic behaviors, and both are appropriately deemed sexually deviant behaviors. No doubt there are some who have both same sex and pedophilic sexual desires, but one does not require the other.

Most Christians recognize the sinfulness of pedophilic, hebephilic, and ephebophilic sexual behaviors and well and often condemn them, at least in the abstract. Sometimes it seems the level of concern or hostility regarding such behaviors has to do with how well or poorly those accused of doing such things align with preferred political, social, and cultural viewpoints: many Christians seem quite willing to castigate and condemn the inappropriate sexual behaviors of those “on the other side,” but conspicuously fall silent when some on “our side” are exposed.

Unfortunately, many times it is those who profess Christ who are accused of acting on pedophilic, hebephilic, or ephebophilic desires and have committed child sexual abuse. Sometimes other Christians have responded appropriately by appropriately disciplining those who would do such things, handing them over to the appropriate secular authorities so they might suffer the appropriate secular consequences, and have sought to provide appropriate encouragement, strength, and support to those who have survived their predations. Unfortunately, far too many times other Christians have responded poorly. Christians have too often shielded child sexual predators from accountability from secular authorities. Christians have too often instead attempted to foist blame upon the children involved, as if they “seduced” the adult or encouraged the adult to act the way s/he did in some way or another.

Sadly, in some of these unfortunate and sinful reactions to such behaviors by Christians, the normalizing of hebephilic and ephebophilic tendencies is manifest. Yes, boys and girls in their teenage years are beginning to experience sexual maturity and thus sexual desire. Yes, in previous times and cultures, and even in some cultures today, girls were married off often by their late teens, and even in their early- to mid-teen years. There might well be times in which boys and girls will think, feel, and act in sexual ways which ought to be reserved for marriage, either among fellow young people or even toward adults. Yet in all these matters we must remember such young people remain children, and adults have no business or right sexualizing them and/or participating in sexual behaviors with them. Instead, Christian adults should continue to strive to maintain their bodies in holiness and purity. If they transgress, they should make no excuses for their behaviors, and they certainly have no justification in blaming children for their own moral failures as adults.

Likewise, Christians would do well to be on better guard against grooming behaviors. Grooming, in a sexual context, takes place when an adult works to establish an emotional connection with someone in a more vulnerable or less powerful position and/or their family members, all with a view of gaining greater access to that person in order to develop a sexual relationship with them. Those who have and wish to act on pedophilic, hebephilic, and/or ephebophilic behaviors will often participate in grooming in order to gain the trust of the child so they can eventually sexually abuse the child. Grooming is a great perversion of the kind of relationships Jesus would have Christians cultivate with one another; after all, it is good, right, and appropriate for older Christians to take a spiritual interest in the welfare of children and young people and to provide appropriate encouragement, mentorship, and support. Distorting and perverting such adult and child relationships by introducing sexual exploitation is damnable and shameful.

What stands behind all the various matters we have considered today is the sexualization of children, and Christians therefore do best when they stand firmly against any and all sexualization of children. We do well to forthrightly condemn all pedophilic, hebephilic, and ephebophilic sexual behaviors, and we should condemn any attempt by older people to sexualize young people in any way, shape, or form. We should condemn all child sexual abuse, and seek to provide appropriate encouragement, strength, and support for all those who have survived child sexual abuse. May Christians fully stand against any and all sexualization of children while finding ways to support and strengthen children who have been sexualized, and thus glorify and honor God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Camps, Land, and Cities

The Book of Numbers was aptly named bemidbar in Hebrew, for it bore witness to Israel’s experiences “in the wilderness.” Numbers 1:1-25:11 bore witness to the experience of the generation which YHWH delivered from Egypt: preparation of the camp and Tabernacle for entry into Canaan, persistence in rebellion, its condemnation, and the fulfillment of that condemnation. After the new census of Numbers 26:1-65, much of the focus in Numbers shifted to the new generation and preparing them to finally entering the land of Canaan in Numbers 27:1-36:13, fully manifest in the commandments and instructions given regarding where Israel had camped, defining the land of Canaan and how it should be conquered, and provisions of cities for Levites and for refuge in Numbers 33:1-35:34.

Numbers 33:1-49 featured Moses’ record of all the places Israel encamped from the day after the Passover when Israel departed from Ramses in Egypt to their final wilderness camp in the rift valley plains of Moab along the Jordan River (cf. Exodus 12:37-Numbers 33:49); it is the only passage in the Book of Numbers which explicitly credits Moses as its author. We do not know the specific sites behind most of the locations mentioned; most of them had been forgotten in antiquity. We have better estimations of the sites toward the beginning in Egypt and toward the end in Midian and Moab.

The plainness of much of the list proves notable: camping in the Wilderness of Sinai was addressed with as much fanfare as many of the camping sites during the forty years of wandering, even though much transpired at Sinai (Numbers 33:15-16). But we also do well to notice the particular points at which Moses provided greater detail: how the Israelites left Egypt “with a high hand,” or defiantly, while the Egyptians buried their dead and YHWH was vindicated by His judgment of their gods (Numbers 33:3-4); the springs and palm trees in Elim but no water at Rephidim (Numbers 33:9, 14; cf. Exodus 15:7, 17:1-8); Aaron’s death on Mount Hor, and noting his death after forty years of wandering and at 123, and the king of Arad hearing of the Israelite approach (Numbers 33:38-40; cf. Numbers 20:24-28, 21:1-3).

We can understand why the list of campsites was preserved: even if Israelites would not be able to visit or ascertain exact locations for most of those listed, it provided attestation for all the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites by the hand of Moses himself. But why was it placed at this point in the Book of Numbers? After all, it could have arguably been placed anywhere between Numbers 22:1 and the end of the book. We may not know exactly why the camp list was placed here, but it remains consistent with a general pattern which can be seen throughout the last section of the Book of Numbers: while the younger generation might be preparing to enter the land YHWH promised them, their context and situation was very much determined by all which had taken place beforehand. It was good to be reminded of all the places Israel had to go in order to get to the place where they now stood.

Having recounted all the places where Israel had encamped, YHWH gave commandment and instruction to Moses for Israel regarding the conquest they would soon begin (Numbers 33:50-56). YHWH charged the Israelites to dispossess the current inhabitants of the land and to destroy all the objects and places of their religious veneration (Numbers 33:50-53). Israel should then apportion the land of Canaan amongst their tribes by lot and proportional to the size of the tribe: the greater the tribe, the more land (Numbers 33:54). If the Israelites would not dispossess the people of the land, they would cause them great trouble, and YHWH would do unto the Israelites as He had planned to do to the Canaanites and others in the land (Numbers 33:55-56).

Having charged Israel to dispossess the inhabitants of Canaan and to apportion the land by lot, YHWH then instructed Moses regarding the boundaries of the land Israel would possess in Numbers 34:1-15. The boundaries established in Numbers 34:1-12, on three sides, comported to the consistent expectations before and afterward: the Mediterranean Sea on the west; the edge of the Shephelah to the Dead Sea on the south; the Jordan River on the east. The northern boundaries, however, would suggest Israel would be in possession of a lot of territory in Lebanon and Syria. Only in Ezekiel 47:13-48:35 do we find any comparable description of Israelite territory, and even then, Ezekiel’s prophecy was no doubt rooted in what was promised and expected based on Numbers 34:1-12. Numbers 34:13-15 reiterated the inheritance of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh in Transjordan without explicitly delineating its boundaries.

YHWH then listed out the leader from each tribe which He was choosing to represent each tribe in the land selection process in Numbers 34:16-29. Eleazar the high priest, Joshua, and Caleb represented the only names already familiar to us; the rest of the tribal leaders were named here for the first time, and seem to represent entirely different families from within each tribe than before.

Having addressed the conquest, the land to be apportioned, and who would represent each tribe to portion out the land, YHWH then gave instruction to make provision for the Levites to dwell in the midst of their brothers (Numbers 35:1-8). Israel should give forty-eight towns in which the Levites would dwell throughout the land of Israel: the six cities of refuge which would soon be described as well as forty-two others; the number of towns per tribe should have been proportional to tribal size (Numbers 35:6-8). The Israelites were to give the Levites the town and grazing land around the town; the exact dimensions of the grazing land seem contradictory between Numbers 35:4 and Numbers 35:5, but perhaps the two thousand cubits defined its frontage and the one thousand cubits its depth (Numbers 35:1-5).

In Numbers 35:9-34 YHWH explained the cities of refuge in greater detail. There would be six cities in total, three on each side of the Jordan River (Numbers 35:13-14). The cities of refuge would provide a secure place for anyone who killed another person accidentally (Numbers 35:9-12, 15). YHWH did not want Israel to live under any kind of confusion or delusion: shed blood defiled the land on which the blood was shed, and the only way the land could be expiated of its bloodguilt involved some kind of death (Numbers 35:33-34; cf. Genesis 9:5-6). To this end, YHWH provided a few examples of what we would call first degree murder: if a man struck another with an implement of iron, stone, or wood, and killed him, in such cases the avenger of blood must kill the murderer to make atonement (Numbers 35:16-21). But then YHWH gave provision for cases we would call involuntary manslaughter: if a man threw a rock without seeing anyone or struck a man without enmity and kills someone without intending to do so, the community would adjudicate between the one who committed the involuntary manslaughter and the avenger of blood (Numbers 35:22-24). If the community judged the case as one of involuntary manslaughter, the community would then be compelled to escort the man back to the city of refuge to which he fled, and he must live there until the high priest dies, after which he can return to his city (Numbers 35:25). But if the man would leave the city and the avenger of blood come upon him and kill him, there would be no bloodguilt for the avenger of blood (Numbers 35:26-29). YHWH also made provision, insisting upon capital punishment for all cases of first degree murder, rejecting attempts to pay some kind of ransom instead (Numbers 35:31-32).

We can see the fulfillment of all which YHWH laid out in His commandments and instructions in Numbers 33:50-35:34 in the Book of Joshua. The conquest was set forth in Joshua 1:1-12:24; yet some of the land had not been conquered, and would ultimately not be fully conquered, and all of the inhabitants which the Israelites did not dispossess would indeed become a snare and a source of great pains for Israel (Joshua 13:1-7; cf. Numbers 33:50-56). The land was apportioned out in Joshua 13:8-19:51, although greatly circumscribed in the north in comparison to what was described in Numbers 34:1-12 (cf. Numbers 34:1-29). The cities of refuge were defined in Joshua 20:1-9: Kedesh of Galilee, Shechem of Ephraim, and Hebron of Judah west of the Jordan, and Bezer of Reuben, Ramoth of Gilead, and Golan of Bashan east of the Jordan (cf. Numbers 35:9-34). The rest of the Levite cities were determined in Joshua 21:1-42 (cf. Numbers 35:1-8). The author of the Book of Joshua then solemnly testified how YHWH gave Israel the land He promised to their ancestors, and not one of His promises to them was left unfulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45).

In this way YHWH gave commandments and instruction to Israel regarding the conquest, how the land would be apportioned and by whom, and the establishment of Levitical cities and the cities of refuge in Numbers 33:50-35:34 to prepare Israel for what they would soon accomplish. The Book of Joshua would then bear witness, in the same exact order as Numbers 33:50-25:34, for YHWH’s faithful fulfillment of His promises.

But if the Book of Joshua well recorded how YHWH proved faithful to all His promises to Israel, how come the more northerly lands encompassed within Numbers 34:1-12 were never truly conquered? It proves difficult to come to a firm and robust conclusion, but it is worth noting how the boundaries of the land of Israel as described in Numbers 34:1-12 substantially represents the territory of Canaan as defined, and controlled, by the Egyptians during most of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1525-1208 BCE). We can therefore understand Numbers 34:1-12 as YHWH asserting His sovereignty over the lands of Canaan over which Egypt had formerly asserted its authority. If we entertain the later date theory of the Exodus, such would represent an actual substantive transition of authority: after Merneptah’s incursion in 1208 BCE, Egyptian authority over Canaan faded away, and despite a few later incursions and the assertion of authority over the land, Egypt would never rule over Canaan again the way it had beforehand. YHWH had defeated Egypt and its gods, and YHWH would now give the land of Canaan to whomever He willed. Much of it would go to the Israelites; because of their faithlessness, however, part of the land would not be theirs, and they would suffer all kinds of affliction and oppression from the hands of their neighbors throughout the period of the Judges.

The Book of Numbers would continue with the Gileadites speaking with Moses regarding the provisions made for the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 36:1-12; perhaps this narrative was placed here since it took place chronologically after all the previous instruction and before Moses’ final exhortation set forth in the Book of Deuteronomy, but we have addressed it in greater detail when speaking of YHWH’s original provision for the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27:1-11. The Book of Numbers ended with Numbers 26:13, establishing what had come before as the commandments and decisions YHWH commanded Israel through Moses in the rift valley plains of Moab; such was intended to be the coda of the material which began very similarly in Numbers 26:3.

The Book of Numbers does not seem to have a dramatic ending. Yet perhaps such was the point: at its end, as it was at its beginning, Israel was still bemidbar, “in the wilderness,” as the Book of Numbers is named in Hebrew. The wilderness was the end for almost everyone in the generation of Israel whom YHWH led out of Egypt. The Transjordan lands would be the final destination for the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh. But for the rest of Israel, the wilderness was never intended to be the end of their story. Israel ended the Book of Numbers as much in transition as at its beginning, but in a very different place, both concretely and in terms of maturity and development. It required a long, circuitous, and painful route, but YHWH’s purposes for Israel at the beginning of the Book of Numbers had been satisfied by its end: Israel was organized militarily and societally for the conquest which they were about to undertake. So the Book of Numbers represented the preparations, events, commandments, and instructions for Israel to be prepared to conquer the land of Canaan between the establishment of the Law and the Tabernacle cult in Exodus and Leviticus and Moses’ final speech to Israel and his ultimate demise preserved in the Book of Deuteronomy. All would be fulfilled according to the purposes of YHWH. May we take strength and encouragement from the example of Israel and all YHWH accomplished in and through her and prove faithful to God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry